Downar James, Goldman Russell, Pinto Ruxandra, Englesakis Marina, Adhikari Neill K J
Divisions of Respirology/Critical Care and Palliative Care, University Health Network; and Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care (Downar), Sinai Health System; Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care (Goldman), Sinai Health System; Department of Critical Care Medicine (Pinto), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre; Library and Information Services (Englesakis), University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital; Department of Critical Care Medicine (Adhikari) and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care (Adhikari), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ. 2017 Apr 3;189(13):E484-E493. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160775.
The surprise question - "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?" - has been used to identify patients at high risk of death who might benefit from palliative care services. Our objective was to systematically review the performance characteristics of the surprise question in predicting death.
We searched multiple electronic databases from inception to 2016 to identify studies that prospectively screened patients with the surprise question and reported on death at 6 to 18 months. We constructed models of hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (sROCs) to determine prognostic performance.
Sixteen studies (17 cohorts, 11 621 patients) met the selection criteria. For the outcome of death at 6 to 18 months, the pooled prognostic characteristics were sensitivity 67.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.7%-76.7%), specificity 80.2% (73.3%-85.6%), positive likelihood ratio 3.4 (95% CI 2.8-4.1), negative likelihood ratio 0.41 (95% CI 0.32-0.54), positive predictive value 37.1% (95% CI 30.2%-44.6%) and negative predictive value 93.1% (95% CI 91.0%-94.8%). The surprise question had worse discrimination in patients with noncancer illness (area under sROC curve 0.77 [95% CI 0.73-0.81]) than in patients with cancer (area under sROC curve 0.83 [95% CI 0.79-0.87; = 0.02 for difference]). Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias, often because they had a low or unknown participation rate or had missing data.
The surprise question performs poorly to modestly as a predictive tool for death, with worse performance in noncancer illness. Further studies are needed to develop accurate tools to identify patients with palliative care needs and to assess the surprise question for this purpose.
“如果该患者在未来12个月内死亡,我会感到惊讶吗?”这个意外问题已被用于识别可能从姑息治疗服务中受益的高死亡风险患者。我们的目的是系统评价意外问题在预测死亡方面的性能特征。
我们检索了多个电子数据库,从建库至2016年,以识别前瞻性地用意外问题筛查患者并报告6至18个月时死亡情况的研究。我们构建了分层汇总接受者操作特征(sROC)模型来确定预后性能。
16项研究(17个队列,11621例患者)符合入选标准。对于6至18个月时的死亡结局,汇总的预后特征为灵敏度67.0%(95%置信区间[CI]55.7%-76.7%),特异度80.2%(73.3%-85.6%),阳性似然比3.4(95%CI 2.8-4.1),阴性似然比0.41(95%CI 0.32-0.54),阳性预测值37.1%(95%CI 30.2%-44.6%),阴性预测值93.1%(95%CI 91.0%-94.8%)。意外问题在非癌症疾病患者中的辨别能力(sROC曲线下面积0.77[95%CI 0.73-0.81])比在癌症患者中更差(sROC曲线下面积0.83[95%CI 0.79-0.87;差异P=0.02])。大多数研究存在中度至高偏倚风险,通常是因为它们的参与率低或未知,或存在数据缺失。
意外问题作为死亡预测工具的表现较差至中等,在非癌症疾病中的表现更差。需要进一步研究以开发准确的工具来识别有姑息治疗需求的患者,并为此目的评估意外问题。